ColluSkill: Adversarial Cross-Skill Composition for Evading Agent Skill Scanners
Agent skills are emerging as an important attack surface in LLM-based agent systems. Through an empirical study of existing skill scanners, we find that current defenses primarily inspect individual skills, including their instructions, permissions, dependencies, and code behaviors, which can leave risks arising from cross-skill composition insufficiently examined. This creates a practical blind spot: multiple locally plausible skills may independently pass security scanning while collectively forming a harmful workflow during agent execution. To systematically investigate this threat, we propose ColluSkill, a collusive multi-skill-chain attack framework that decomposes a complete malicious intent into several interdependent subpayloads and embeds them into independently packaged skills. Thus, the attack does not rely on any single malicious skill, but on the ordered composition of locally plausible behaviors through contextual dependencies, artifact passing, and execution handoffs. ColluSkill further employs LLM-based chain planning and scanner-feedback refinement to preserve chain-level attack semantics while iteratively reducing suspicious signals within individual sub-skills.
Introduction. Agent skills are becoming an important way to extend the capabilities of Large Language Model agents (Wang et al. 2024, 2023; Xi et al. 2025; Yao et al. 2022; Liu et al. 2025; Du et al. 2026). A skill usually combines task instructions, tool interfaces, executable scripts, and external resources into a reusable module, allowing an agent to gain new abilities more easily (Schmotz, Abdelnabi, and Andriushchenko 2025; Liang et al. 2026; Zhou et al. 2026; Jiang et al. 2026). This modular design improves the reuse and scalability of agent systems and has supported the rapid growth of agent frameworks and skill-sharing platforms (Zheng et al. 2025; Wang et al. 2026; Pu, Song, and Zhao 2026; Saha and Hemanth 2026). However, the same flexibility also introduces new security risks because a skill may do more than provide text instructions (Jia et al. 2024; Huang et al. 2026). It can execute code, read or write files, call external APIs, and access system resources (Ruan et al. 2024).
Discussion / Conclusion. This paper proposes ColluSkill, a collusive multi-skillchain attack framework that distributes harmful intent across locally plausible sub-skills and uses chain planning and scanner-feedback refinement to recover the full attack at the chain level. Across six representative skill scanners, ColluSkill achieves an average ASR of 96.0% and performs best among the evaluated baselines. It also executes successfully on OpenCode, Claude Code, and Codex with different model backbones. To defend against this threat, we propose Chain- Guard, which reduces the ASR to 22.5% while allowing 99.5% of benign workflows to pass. These results highlight adversarial cross-skill composition as an important attack surface and motivate chain-level defenses.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Can we reliably detect when models game evaluations? Can single-point security defenses protect multi-agent systems from multi-step attacks?- Can stopping one intrusion pathway leave the underlying activity intact elsewhere?
- Does ChainGuard maintain effectiveness when attackers adapt their approach to the defense?
- What state-tracking requirements exist for defenses that verify multi-party behavioral invariants?
- How do defenses that inspect planning signals compare to workflow-level validation?
- Should input defenses be validated separately for each channel?
- Do per-hop inspection gates miss attacks that bias upstream planning signals?
- How do authorization layers differ from input-boundary defenses in blocking attacks?
- Can an attacker copy a rule that distinguishes trusted agents from compromised ones?
- Why does scanning skill pairs not fully prevent cross-skill attacks?
- Can defenses check skill chains at execution time instead of scan time?
- What trace-level defenses exist beyond per-step review overhead?
- Can adversarial attacks chain multiple skills to evade security checks?
- Can action-level attack success rates distinguish contained attacks from prevented ones?
- Why does treating evaluation as a local output problem miss security risks?
- Why do workflow-level defenses catch attacks that single-skill inspection cannot detect?
- Why is evading detection easier than internalizing safety norms?
- Can defenses tuned against appended attacks stop prepended payloads?
- Do synthetic attack traces in papers reflect real adversary behavior?